Did the Lord decide that the 1611 Authorized Version he’d been blessing for 371 years just didn’t cut it anymore? When did the best-selling, most read Bible of all time become insufficient to meet the needs of his people?

Here’s a theological question:

Do you believe that just because someone publishes a book with the title “Bible” on it that it has to be “God’s will”?

How many things have you done that were definitely “God’s will”?

Likewise, just because some academic, scholarly Christian contracts his translation services to a businessman, does it automatically follow that it’s “God’s will” just because he’s agreed to work on a book titled “Bible”?

There have been well over 100 English Bible versions published in the last hundred years. Do you think the Lord was behind them all? Even if their publishers and committee members did, that doesn’t make it so.

Love ’em or hate ’em, the Trumps are some of the most successful entrepreneurs on earth.

The Trump name is synonymous with some of the most prestigious projects around the world––from deluxe residential condominiums and world-renowned architecturally significant hotels to premier golf courses and luxury resorts.

The Trump brand stands at the forefront of global real estate providing the highest level of exclusivity. They have branded prestigious landmarks around the world; from New York, Toronto, Chicago, and Los Angeles to Istanbul, Panama City, Seoul, and Manila.

The Trump Organization is owned and managed by the Trump family with Donald Trump as its CEO and three of his eldest children—Donald Trump Jr., Ivanka Trump, and Eric Trump serving as Executive Vice Presidents within the organization.[1]

Their properties exude luxury and stand for everything that the Trump brand signifies––something they are proud of when their projects are completed.

Is the Lord any less proud of his landmark book––a book that shaped and molded a language, a people, and a nation?

It’s no wonder that the King James is more likely to be the Bible read during the week than the NIV by a 5:1 ratio.[2]The King James Bible stands alone. Its position is firmly established by a 400-year history of market domination and billions of copies sold.

The reason there is such a thing as “King James Onlyism” is because the King James Bible is the only brand millions of folks insist on. In marketing, this is known as “brand insistence.” It didn’t happen by accident. The Lord is the “brand manager.”

The Trumps jealously guard their brand––which is also their name. Their “brand” can be trusted. Financiers, bankers, developers, and other entrepreneurs are anxious to do business with them because of their reputation.

Do you think the Lord is any less jealous for the King James Bible brand and the integrity and purity of the words he’s been using for the past 400 years? His King James brand is proven. The words can be trusted.

Do you assume Sam Moore, former CEO and president of Thomas Nelson,Inc., prayed and fasted before he came up with the idea that we desperately needed a “revision” of the King James Bible? Did the Lord lay a “burden” upon his heart?

Alas, the “burden” came, first of all, from…

His son.

Dr. Kenneth Barker, one of the original translators of theNewAmerican Standard Bible and New International Version, relates this story about Sam Moore and the origin of the NKJV:

However, when his son Joe asked, “Why can’t you make a Bible I can understand?” Moore decided to use the resources of his company to produce another translation.[3]

That’s just great. It’s laudable to do good things for your kids.

But…

Building a new Bible isn’t one of them.

Barker continues…

The year was 1975. The Living Bible and the New American Standard Bible were already commercial successes. The New Testament of the New International Version was also selling well. Like those translations, the new version Moore envisioned would be produced by conservative and evangelical scholars. It would, however, have an important difference. While every major English Bible translation from 1885 to 1975 was based on a critical or eclectic text, only the King James was based on the traditional text. Moore proposed a new revision of the King James based on the same Hebrew and Greek text used by the KJV translators themselves.

In a series of meetings in Chicago, Illinois; Nashville, Tennessee; and London, England, Moore explained his proposal and solicited the support of conservative evangelicals. His idea even won the praise of many fundamentalists who previously had been suspicious of any attempt at revision of the King James.[4]

All successful businessmen test the water temperature before they leap into the pool. So Mr. Moore floated a trial balloon. He saw he could get leadership acceptance and invested $4 million in the project.[5]

He knew that if he could convert even a small percentage of King James Bible users to his new product then, like the marketers say, he’d absolutely “crush it.” With the backing of leadership to use in promotion of the book, Moore was ready to dive in.[6]

Did any conservative evangelicals and fundamentalists wonder if the Lord had an opinion? Or did they just think it was a “good idea”?

Moore is a Christian and an outstanding entrepreneur.[7] He had been publishing Bibles since 1963. Thomas Nelson, Inc., sells books; some of them have the name Bible on them. The brand of Bibles isn’t the issue.

They sell Bibles; more than 6 million copies annually––any brand. So the question of whether or not it was the Lord’s will that a “competing” Bible should be produced probably never crossed his mind. They’re all good.

But let’s consider…

The translation committee.

Did the fellows that agreed to be on the committee to “revise” the translation of the 1611 King James Bible do so because they just had to...

sensitively polish the archaisms and vocabulary of the 1611 King James version in order to preserve and enhance its originally intended beauty and content[8]

… or did they logically justify their decision after they emotionally decided that it was in their personal interest to be on the committee? Was the idea of memorializing themselves in a printed work of such great import as translating the Bible what compelled them?

But this isn’t some ordinary product. When it comes to the Bible, you’ve stepped into another realm. You’re dealing with the eternal words of the living God. That’s a scary thought; and a great responsibility before God.

He knows the hearts of men. He knows all our motives. And he knows the hearts and motives of the men who were involved in the project.

But let’s give the benefit of the doubt and suppose the committee really was burdened because they felt the body of Christ desperately needed a clearer and more understandable Bible.

Elmer Towns, a member of the NKJV oversight committee, said Mr. Moore’s burden was to…

Modernize the King James
word forms and spelling.

Some time ago my good friend Mr. Sam Moore of Thomas Nelson Publishing Co. in Nashville, Tennessee, shared with me his burden to publish the King James Version of the Bible in an updated translation that would retain the text, the dignity and the beauty of the 1611 version and yet provide modernization of the word forms and spellings as they are now used in the twentieth century.[9]

This all seems like “stuff and nonsense” because we’re still using virtually the same spelling and word forms used back in 1762 and 1769 when the spelling and grammar of the 1611 King James Bible was modernized. You’ll read more on this later.

Nevertheless, they made it a point to dump the “thees and thous” even though such wording is quite familiar to us from hymnals and even from TV reruns like Little House onthePrairie and The Waltons.

Dr. James Price, former professor of Hebrew and Old Testament at Temple Baptist Seminary (1972–2005), said:

In my early days, it never entered my mind that the King James Version needed revision into modern English because I cut my teeth on that edition of the Bible, memorizing it from early childhood. Consequently, I understood King James English as well as modern English and did not know some people had trouble comprehending it. It was not until I began teaching in seminary that I discovered I was investing a worthwhile percentage of my time teaching Elizabethan English in my classes instead of Bible. Many students did not understand (or they misunderstood) what they read in the King James Bible because of its archaic language. That encouraged me to participate in the editing of the new King James version.[10]

There are two things you should notice from this statement:

Dr. Price memorized the King James Bible “from early childhood.”

He said that he was “investing a worthwhile percentage of [his] time teaching Elizabethan English in [his] classes instead of Bible.”

If Dr. Price could memorize verses in the King James Bible as a child, shouldn’t he expect his seminary students to at least be able to read and understand the English text?

And in response to his complaint of spending too much “time teaching Elizabethan English in [his] classes instead of Bible,” we have to ask…

Evidently, the King James Bible was so difficult for them that Dr. Price had to build a brand spankin’ new version of the Bible for them.

The fact is, any version of the Bible is loaded with many words some people don’t use (or misuse) today. Anybody who wants to really understand God’s word––in any version––has to learn a new vocabulary. They have to learn history and geography as well.

If it’s too hard for his Hebrew and Greek students to learn a few English vocabulary words, then his students could never become carpenters. They’d have to memorize words like soffit, fascia, mullion, sash, ridge, sill, and gable.

It gets worse. What if they want to play football? Imagine the confusion:

It’s what keeps lawyers in business. If you’ve ever bought a house, financed a car, or been involved in a business agreement, you know how important the choice of words is; changing words can (and often does) mean changing the deal.

Have you ever gotten “revised” wording to your credit card agreement in the mail? Your bank is putting you on notice that they’ve changed the deal. Now you get to pay a higher rate of interest.

The BHS is based upon a different manuscript (the Leningrad Manuscript B19a) than that of the Ben Chayyim Masoretic Text. It’s been said that the differences between the two are microscopic.[11]

Nonetheless, the following differences in translation (not text) affect doctrine. For example, what’s the Lord going to teach when he comes to…

The doctrine of…
“Man”

What constitutes a man? This rendering of the Hebrew word in Genesis 2 affects the cross-reference in Matthew 16:26.

Genesis 2:7

KJB: “... and man became a living SOUL.”

NKJV: “... and man became a living being.”

NIV: “…and the man became a living being.”

According to the King James Bible, you are a living soul and you are located in a body (or at least you used to be before the NIV and NKJV). Your soul has eyes, nose, and mouth. Your soul can see and talk.

The biblical example is in Luke 16, the story of the rich man and Lazarus:

The rich man’s body was buried:

“…the rich man also died, and was buried” (Luke 16:22).

His spirit returned “unto God who gave it.”

“Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it (Ecclesiastes 12:7). If he set his heart upon man, if he gather unto himself his spirit and his breath; All flesh shall perish together, and man shall turn again unto dust (Job 34:14–15); Who knoweth the spirit of man that goeth upward, and the spirit of the beast that goeth downward to the earth? (Ecclesiastes 3:21)

His soul was in hell:

And in hell he lift up his eyes, being in torments, and seeth Abraham afar off, and Lazarus in his bosom (Luke 16:23).

Note how the King James Bible cross-references itself:

King James Bible 1611

Genesis 2:7

Matthew 16:26

And the Lord God formed man of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul.

For what is a man profited, if he shall gain the whole world, and lose his own soul? or what shall a man give in exchange for his soul?

Matthew cross-references with Genesis in the King James Bible but not in the New King James Version:

In this case, the Lord is forced to choose between the King James Bible and the newer version. Are the ways of the wicked “always prospering” or are his ways “alwaysgrievous”?

Each Bible says and means two different things. The Lord can’t have the same verses saying two different things without looking inconsistent. And that’s exactly how he’d look if he decides to substitute the new translation for the one he’s been using for the past 400 years.

Here’s another example. Notice how this translation choice ultimately affects the inerrancy of the Scriptures:

The Lord can’t recommend both of these Bibles because they say and mean the exact opposite. One reading is true; the other isn’t. Only one can be correct, and the Lord has to choose one. He can’t pick both.

for all the land which you see I give to you and your descendants forever.

Now to Abraham and his Seed were the promises made. He does not say, “And to seeds,” as of many, but as of one, “And to your Seed,” who is Christ.

The cross-reference explanation of the Genesis 13 verse is Galatians 3:16. Abraham had many descendants. Some of whom were not even of Israel, such as Ishmael. But more importantly, Genesis 13:15 is not referring to seeds (plural) but to a singular seed, which is Jesus Christ as is made clear in Galatians 3:16.

The Revised Standard Version (RSV) was perhaps the most controversial version of the Bible ever translated. Its publication (the New Testament in 1946; the Old Testament in 1952) brought forth a multitude of books and pamphlets against it that attracted the attention of both the secular and religious press. Copies of the RSV were even burned.

The RSV relegated Mark 16:9–20 and John 7:53–8:11 to footnotes, attacked the deity of Christ by changing the punctuation of Romans 9:5, dropped the word begotten from John 3:16, replaced the word propitiation throughout the New Testament, and, in what became the most controversial passage of all, changed the word virgin to “young woman” in Isaiah 7:14. This is all in addition to the scores of omitted phrases and verses in the New Testament because of the corrupt Greek text that the RSV was translated from.[12]

Instead of ignoring the RSV and letting Mr. Market bury it like he did its predecessor, the Revised Version of 1881/1885, evangelical and fundamentalist leaders got into a tizzy. Instead of just preaching and teaching the book that had been so successful, the book their congregations actually believed, the “controversy over the RSV led to the translating of two other well-known versions, The New American Standard Bible (NASB) [and] the New International Version (NIV).”

Consider the legacy of the RSV:

NIV committee member Dr. Jack P. Lewis said:

The RSV opened the era of the multiple translations flooding today’s market, all competing with each other.[13]

Pretty interesting comment, isn’t it? Note the words “all competing with each other.” Does that sound like something the Lord is behind?

The RSV is an authorized revision of the American Standard Version (ASV) of 1901. It was a production of the forerunner of what is now the National Council of Churches. The controversy stemming from the RSV helped reignite the King-James-Only Movement within the Independent Baptist and Pentecostal churches … Funding for the revision was assured in 1936 by a deal that was made with Thomas Nelson & Sons. The deal gave Thomas Nelson & Sons the exclusive rights to print the new version for ten years.[14]

By the way, in 2001, publisher Crossway Bibles released its own revision of the RSV called the English Standard Version (ESV). We’ll examine how this happened in a later chapter.

If we assume that the Lord was involved with the translation in the 1611 King James Bible, then we should also assume that he is pleased with the English words as they have appeared for the past 400 years.

There is no reason to assume he changed his mind in 1982 and decided to discard the wording he’s presented billions of times in 400 years.

They jacked the naming rights of the 1611 King James Bible for free. They named their work after a proven winner. They piggybacked on a bestseller. A brilliant marketing move.

Sam Moore (the entrepreneur-owner of the publisher Thomas Nelson & Sons) also used celebrity endorsements to promote the product. Third-party endorsement with star power is a tried and true sales technique.

It was the editors’ conviction that the use of footnotes would encourage further inquiry by readers. They also recognized that it was easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text, than to insert a word or phrase which had been left out by the revisers.[15]

Look how their variant reading footnotes “encourage further inquiry” and make it “easier for the average reader to”…

“Delete” the word “yet” from the text and present Jesus a liar like the NIV, NASB, ESV, and Holman Christian Standard (HCSB) do in John 7:8–10.

“Delete” the phrase “without a cause,” thereby presenting Jesus a sinner like the NIV does in Matthew 5:22 and Mark 3:5.

“Delete” the proof text for the Trinity like the NIV, ESV, NASB, and HCSB do in 1 John 5:7–8.

“Delete” the proof text for the Incarnation explicitly stating that God became a man like the NIV, ESV, and NASB do in 1 Timothy 3:16.

And never to be “out-scholared” by other versions, they provide a footnote so you can…

Purposefully insert known errors into the text like the ESV does in Matthew 1:7, 8, 10. (so much for the “inerrancy of the Scriptures”).

If they actually believed their text and wording was God’s Holy words, then why encourage their readers to edit it by using the variant readings they present in their footnotes?

The truth is that the committee members, editors, and publisher of the NKJV as well as the men who promote it really believe that only “The Original Bible” is the real Bible. And only “The Original Bible” is inspired and inerrant. The New King James Version is just a shadow of the real thing.

Look…

There’s nothing wrong with footnotes.

The 1611 and subsequent editions of the King James Bible have marginal notes, footnotes, and even notations of variant readings. It’s been noted that:

Where a Hebrew or Greek word admits two meanings of a suitable kind, the one was to be expressed in the text, the other in the margin. The same to be done where a different reading was found in good copies.[16]

And Miles Smith, one of the 1611 translators, said:

Now in such a case doth not a margin do well to admonish the Reader to seek further, and not to conclude or dogmatize upon this or that peremptorily? For as it is a fault of incredulity, to doubt of those things that are evident; so to determine of such things as the Spirit of God hath left (even in the judgment of the judicious) questionable, can be no less than presumption.[17]

Miles was referring primarily to the translation of a word in English––not the substitution of a variant reading found in some manuscript, even though they did make note of some textual variants.

It’s the motive that counts. The NKJV editors’ motive, by their own admission, was to make it “easier for the average reader to delete something he or she felt was not properly a part of the text.”

They provided a way for “he or she” to use the notes to undo the text that the Lord has been using for thousands of years. Do you think the Lord appreciates their motive?

But…

The editors said they were convicted to do this. Now each reader can create a Bible after their own heart. Who does this? Who encourages everyone to be a textual critic by making it easier for them to “delete” the holy words of God as they see fit? And these are the fellows who preach sermons on convictions versus preferences.

Now this is all really funny considering that it is coming out of the mouths of some fundamentalists.

In case you’re new to the business, fundamentalists go out of their way to tell you exactly what’s the right kind of music, what’s the right kind of clothing, and what’s the proper length of your hair.

It has been my privilege to serve on the Overview Committee for this translation. While I still preach only from the old King James Version, I heartily recommend the New King James Bible for study and clarification of archaic English terms.[18]

Why would he preach “only from the old King James Version” when no one could understand its archaic English? Not very considerate is it? Evidently, the Old King James Version is good enough to preach out of but not good enough to study? Go figure.

[6] More than 60 million units have been sold in the past 30 years. Lighthouse Christian Bookstore, “NKJV Study Bible: Second Edition,” accessed December 2012, http://www.thelighthousechristianbookstore.com/product.asp?sku=9781418548674.

[16] Price James D. A Response to D. A. Waite's Criticism of the New King James Version September, 1995 p. 8 citing Report on the Making of the Version of 1611 Presented to the Synod of Dort, November 16, 1611. http://www.jamesdprice.com/newkingjamesversion.html